Re: Warez. This may sound stupid...a different perspective

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (X) writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On 04 Sep 2000 19:33:41 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) thus >spoke: > > >>What is Maya 2.5? >>And I *know* Photoshop can't cost that much. It's included with Pagemaker, >>which only retails for about $600... > >That's PS Lite that's included with Pagemaker. Maybe he is Canadian, >where PS is over $900.00 retail, then add 15% tax and it's well over >$1000.00. Unless you are a student, which gets you a substantial >discount.

Wow - that IS a ridiculous price...sheesh. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 04 Sep 2000 19:33:43 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>In article <v9Ps5.5593$[email hidden]>, "Stuart Becktell" ><[email hidden]> writes: > >>I have the same issue going on right now. I had a lot of warez too, but >>after getting a job, I'm starting to buy games. I even did this when it took >>me a month to be able to think about buying a game. People like Barton that >>automatically call a person with one "warez" the devil are too extreme, and >>THEY ARE the problem with the internet. You would never go up to someone >>that you just say, and talk to them in the tone that Barton is, and you have >>to see this in every message that you send. >>-Stuart Becktell > >I think that most of us realize that it goes on. We also know that even though >we're against it(because it IS stealing, no matter what ANYONE says)

THAT is debatable, i.e. not as obvious as you make it sound. What makes it a bit special is that you are not "taking the software away". You make a copy. So this *isolated* fact on itself does NOT hurt the person who you are copying it from. That's why so many people, who wouldn't even *consider* "stealing classic style", have no ethical problems with using warez. The way I see it, the isolated act of downloading and using the warez is not necessarilly wrong. You always have to consider it together with the intention and the background. Let's consider a product like 3D Studio MAX for example. I don't know how much it is, but it's several $1000 I'm sure? There are at least 3 kinds of people we have to consider here: 1. the professional user, uses 3D software to make animations, games etc.. NOT having 3D software is no option for this person. He only has ONE choice: using 3D software, to make a living. If he would use a warez copy, he would definitely "steal". The question still is: does this hurt 3D Studio? He had 4 alternatives: buying 3D Studio, buying a cheaper product, downloading a freeware product or using the warez copy. If the warez copy would NOT have been available, he could have decided to buy the cheaper product instead of 3D Studio!(The freeware product probably lacks functionality necessary for professional use) So in effect it could be the cheaper product that is hurt here after all. Anyway: using the warez is plain wrong here, no matter how you look at it. But its not 100% clear whether 3D Studio is right when it claims having been robbed. 2. one-time user (for example a student needs to do 3D modelling for some project) This person DOES have the option to have NO 3D software, but he/she is very unlikely to take that option :-) Having decent 3D modelling does have significant influence on the life of this person. It is necessary and substantial. One thing is for sure: he/she would NEVER buy 3D Studio. That is simply not an option since too expensive. So there are three choices left: either use a warez copy of 3D Studio MAX (or of another product), buying a cheaper product or the alternative of using the freeware 3D software POVray. Choosing to use the warez copy does NOT hurt 3D Studio. But it DOES hurt the cheaper product? Using the warez is probably wrong in this case. Not from the point of view of 3D Studio, but from the point of view of the cheaper product. But what if the student would download and use the freeware POVray? Isn't the end result in this case the same for the "cheaper product"? Maybe the student who pirates the "cheaper product" would not have bothered if he only KNEW POVray? Or the other way round: someone who downloads POVray, could have pirated a "cheaper product" instead if he hadn't known POVray? It seems here that the mere *existence* of POVray has influence on the debate as well! 3. occasional user, playing around with 3D modelling in free time For example someone making 3D car models in his free time, available for download to use in games like GP3 to stay on topic :-) This person does not make any money with the software. Also the software is not in the least necessary for him/her. He only gets personal entertainment out of it, and maybe a tiny little bit of status in the online community of this game. It is highly debatable that this person would spend considerable money on 3D software. If there was no alternative, he would simply not make 3D models at all! BUYING 3D Studio is totally out of the question in this case. Buying a "cheaper product" is possible, but unlikely. Downloading POVray for free is a valid option. But now this person reasons: "I am not in a position to hurt 3D Studio since I would never buy it (I even CAN'T). I can buy a "cheaper product" instead. But I also can download POVray for FREE! But since this is free it doesn't make any difference for the authors of POVray whether I download it or not. =>> Let's just PRETEND for myself that I downloaded POVray, but use 3D Studio warez version instead. Makes it easier for me, and I don't hurt anyone since I would have used POVray if 3D Studio warez version wouldn't have been available" He DOES have a point here, don't you think? I mean: WHO cares? I think these scenarios illustrate that the warez debate has nuances... If it would all be so clearly immoral and wrong, then it would not be such a widespread phenomenon anyway. JoH

On 05 Sep 2000 10:48:40 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >>That's PS Lite that's included with Pagemaker. Maybe he is Canadian, >>where PS is over $900.00 retail, then add 15% tax and it's well over >>$1000.00. Unless you are a student, which gets you a substantial >>discount. > >Wow - that IS a ridiculous price...sheesh. So you're going to download the warez version now? :) (just kidding, I know you won't) Andre >Eldred

On 05 Sep 2000 10:48:40 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) thus spoke: >Wow - that IS a ridiculous price...sheesh. That is in CDN dollars. In U.S. dollars it is equal to about $600.00 before taxes. But 900 dollars is 900 dollars to us. -- X

On 05 Sep 2000 10:48:40 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) thus spoke: >Wow - that IS a ridiculous price...sheesh. > >Eldred P.S. And don't forget the cost of upgrades. I got PS 4.0 at a student price $600 instead of $900 and within a year or so there where two upgrades put out, which I never bought, but if I did it would have cost me an additional $500 or so. -- X

On 05 Sep 2000 03:48:16 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > >Well, at least we agree on that one. I'm sorry you don't agree with the rest, >though... Actually, although I seem to have been turned into some kind of pirate hacker or something (by Barton Fink or whatever his name is) I wouldn't have the first idea how to crack software! LOL! I am sort of on the fence. I certainly understand the POV of those that believe it is out and out stealing but I am not convinced either way on the issue. However, I do defend the right of those that are sure they want to d/l warez. They don't deserve to be flamed or ridiculed here, IMHO (unless they start posting links to warez sites.) As I said before - I will not download tracks from The French Pits but I might consider a warez of a very expensive professional package. I think it is very, very difficult to draw the line.

Matt wrote: > However, I do defend the right of those that are sure they want to d/l warez. Uhm, I thought they do not have a right to download warez. -Gregor

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:16:39 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) wrote: > Let's consider a product like >3D Studio MAX for example. I don't know how much it is, but it's >several $1000 I'm sure? <Snip> >He had 4 alternatives: buying 3D Studio, buying a >cheaper product, downloading a freeware product or using the warez >copy. I read this with interest since I am a 3d modeller/animator as a hobby. 3D Studio Max is about 2500$, I think. All I remember is looking at the price and shuddering when I went to get a program for my (at the time) curiousity. I ended up buying Caligari trueSpace instead after trying a demo (now available free as a full functioning program!). Since I got it way back at version 1 and have purchased the license upgrades as new versions come out (except for the latest), the cost has been a bit less painful to endure. It would be nice to have 3D Studio Max but I haven't got 2500$ around to pay for it, nor would I if I had the money handy unless I was very rich or a professional 3D artist. In that case I would go talk to my pal who works for A|W anyway (heh heh.) So I haven't "warezed" a copy of 3D Studio Max, even though this tries to make it seem OK: _________ But now this person reasons: "I am not in a position to hurt 3D Studio since I would never buy it (I even CAN'T). I can buy a "cheaper product" instead. But I also can download POVray for FREE! But since this is free it doesn't make any difference for the authors of POVray whether I download it or not. =>> Let's just PRETEND for myself that I downloaded POVray, but use 3D Studio warez version instead. Makes it easier for me, and I don't hurt anyone since I would have used POVray if 3D Studio warez version wouldn't have been available" He DOES have a point here, don't you think? I mean: WHO cares? _____________ *I* would care. I see your logic that 3D Studio hasn't really lost anything since I wasn't about to buy it anyway, but it's just not OK! It would bother me every time I ran the program that I didn't "own" it. I think it would interfere with my ability to use it effectively because I would feel like I got an unfair advantage over someone using a lesser product who paid for it. Does that make any sense? I wouldn't feel bad about going to someone's house who legitimately owned it and using it there (with their permission, of course) and that probably violates some kind of user agreement, so I guess I am no king of morality, either. ~daxe

"Matt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 05 Sep 2000 03:48:16 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > > > >Well, at least we agree on that one. I'm sorry you don't agree with therest,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >though... > > > Actually, although I seem to have been turned into some kind of pirate > hacker or something (by Barton Fink or whatever his name is) I > wouldn't have the first idea how to crack software! LOL! I am sort of > on the fence.

You've already said that you download warez- it doesn't sound like you're on the fence at all. > I certainly understand the POV of those that believe it is out and out > stealing but I am not convinced either way on the issue. Once again, it seems that you ARE convinced on the issue. If you want the program, you'll download it. >....However, I > do defend the right of those that are sure they want to d/l warez. > They don't deserve to be flamed or ridiculed here, IMHO (unless they > start posting links to warez sites.) Yes, I see a future constitutional amendment here- "The Right to Keep and Bear Warez shall not be infringed." You have an odd understanding of what "rights" are. It certainly doesn't seem to include the concept of intellectual property rights.

EldredP wrote: > > I think that most of us realize that it goes on. Eldred, You've said it all, and far better than *I* have. There's really nothing more to add to the subject than what's right here in your post. THIS should be part of a FAQ. Let me just repeat some of your last lines, because it's what *I* was trying to get across: a "little" immorality and irresponsibility just makes subsequent escalations easier: >> People like this have the attitude that "I don't care if what I do isillegal, immoral, or hurts someone's feelings. I'm doing it because I *want* to, and screw everyone else." It's attitudes like this that causes teenagers to be shot over their *shoes*...tragic. << Way to go, brother. Bart Brown

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:30:17 GMT, daxe <[email hidden]> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:16:39 GMT, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) >wrote: <snipped> ______

Quoted text (22 lines)

>But now this person reasons: "I am not in a position to hurt 3D Studio >since I would never buy it (I even CAN'T). I can buy a "cheaper >product" instead. But I also can download POVray for FREE! But since >this is free it doesn't make any difference for the authors of POVray >whether I download it or not. =>> Let's just PRETEND for myself that I >downloaded POVray, but use 3D Studio warez version instead. Makes it >easier for me, and I don't hurt anyone since I would have used POVray >if 3D Studio warez version wouldn't have been available" > >He DOES have a point here, don't you think? I mean: WHO cares? >_____________ > >*I* would care. I see your logic that 3D Studio hasn't really lost >anything since I wasn't about to buy it anyway, but it's just not OK! >It would bother me every time I ran the program that I didn't "own" >it. I think it would interfere with my ability to use it effectively >because I would feel like I got an unfair advantage over someone using >a lesser product who paid for it. Does that make any sense? I >wouldn't feel bad about going to someone's house who legitimately >owned it and using it there (with their permission, of course) and >that probably violates some kind of user agreement, so I guess I am no >king of morality, either.

I admire your high standards in this issue :-) But I think you understand that some people will have no problems with the approach outlined above. The majority of these people do not deserve the label "criminal" or "thief" in the classic sense. They would never consider behaving like a criminal or thief in the classic sense. JoH

Jo Helsen wrote: > >If it would all be so clearly immoral and wrong, then it would not besuch a widespread phenomenon anyway. Yeah, right ... like kiddie-porn. Thanks for capping a completely illogical argument with the perfect insupportable and nonsensical conclusory statement. Here are some more phenomena that are "widespread" and thus must NOT be "clearly immoral and wrong" Political corruption White Collar Crime Stock fraud Insurance scams Tax evasion Drug dealing Drug use Shoplifting Burglary Rape Murder Child abuse Assault LOT of THAT stuff going on, so those things MUST be OK, right, Jo?

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Here are some more phenomena that are "widespread" and thus must NOT be >"clearly immoral and wrong" > >Political corruption >White Collar Crime >Stock fraud >Insurance scams >Tax evasion >Drug dealing

I get your point on this, but I have to draw the line at drug dealing. I pay my taxes just like any other good drug dealer! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Gristina [email hidden] "I am tougher than a $2 steak" - Norman Smiley

daxe wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > *I* would care. I see your logic that 3D Studio hasn't really lost > anything since I wasn't about to buy it anyway, but it's just not OK! > It would bother me every time I ran the program that I didn't "own" > it. I think it would interfere with my ability to use it effectively > because I would feel like I got an unfair advantage over someone using > a lesser product who paid for it. Does that make any sense?

Makes perfect sense -- you have a working moral code and a conscience. I'm sure the "I want it so I'm gonna steal it" punks think you're a sap for having such compunctions, but *you're* the one on the right path, not them. I'll bet some of 'em even go to church... BB

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:33:00 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: >Jo Helsen wrote: >> >>If it would all be so clearly immoral and wrong, then it would not be >such a widespread phenomenon anyway. > >Yeah, right ... like kiddie-porn. I'm trying to stay serious. >Thanks for capping a completely illogical argument Whether it is logical or not doesn't matter. It is how a lot of warez users approach it. And please expand on why it is so totally illogical. >with the perfect >insupportable and nonsensical conclusory statement. I agree that it was not a smart argument in retrospect. However, I do have the impression that the kind of warez-use that I was referring to in example 3, is mostly tolerated. When you hear about anti-piracy actions, it almost exclusively concerns use by companies or organized piracy groups. In my country, the anti-piracy organization clearly admitted in the open that the home-user was the least of their concern, the lowest priority. I even suspect that PC manufacturers are actually (unofficially) HAPPY with warez since it sells them a lot of units!

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Here are some more phenomena that are "widespread" and thus must NOT be >"clearly immoral and wrong" > >Political corruption >White Collar Crime >Stock fraud >Insurance scams >Tax evasion >Drug dealing >Drug use >Shoplifting >Burglary >Rape >Murder >Child abuse >Assault > >LOT of THAT stuff going on, so those things MUST be OK, right, Jo?

Of course not. What I should have added is that the "warez user type 3" genuinely comes to the conclusion that he doesn't do a great deal wrong. It doesn't trouble his or her conscience AT ALL because in his or her mind no-one was put at a disadvantage. And these are people who are mostly perfectly normal. We can clearly eliminate the comparison with >Rape >Murder >Child abuse >Assault >Drug dealing no explanation needed I guess. We can also eliminate >Shoplifting >Burglary since nothing is damaged or *taken*away* I don't see what's wrong with >Drug use The remaining ones are a little more difficult... >Political corruption >White Collar Crime >Stock fraud >Insurance scams >Tax evasion Personally I condemn all of these. There is always a victim, but maybe it is too "distant" for some to really bother. Sort of like a pilot dropping bombs on a village from 10.000 feet altitude. As I said, I personally have no problem with people using warez as in my 3rd example. And neither does the hardware or software industry I think. Otherwise they would have taken much more serious actions against these people. The victims of this kind of warez use are meely "virtual" victims IMO. In a way you can compare warez to pornography or prostitution. Some people would love to ban them, but it just doesn't happen. Because... - a lot of people genuinely have no problem with either at all - EFFECTIVELY banning them totally (if possible at all) has more drawbacks than positive results - it generates money - who gets hurt?(if we exclude extreme excesses) JoH

Jo, I don't know what planet you currently reside on, but there is no "warez user type 3". There is a Warez user, period. The law is a two-part process: prosecution, and -- in the event of conviction -- sentencing. The law in this case is crystal clear: software piracy constitutes intellectual property theft, and is illegal. Period. No shadings, no "warez user type 3" -- it's just plain illegal. Now, if you and your pals are snagged pirating one copy of Spirit of Speed 1937, and you're convicted of it, sentence -- punishment -- will be imposed. In the case of "Spirit of Speed 1937," the sentence would probably be to make you play it for 48 hours straight. If Bozo, Jr. is caught pirating a single copy of MS BackOffice and is convicted, he will be sentenced differently, as the dollar value is considerably higher and Microsoft has better lawyers than the SOS folks. If a big corporate office gets convicted of pirating 100 copies of Photoshop, their sentence is likely to be larger still -- except their lawyers will mitigate the whole thing and pass on the legal fees to the consumer -- you and me. Let me tell you a little story: in the late 18th century, the British Navy, depleted of manpower by disease, shipwreck and a number of other factors, simply couldn't get enough men to man their ships. So they press-ganged them -- they'd get some guy drunk, or just break into his home, and haul him off to what was usually a very short and bitter life at sea. Oh, and for no pay whatsoever. In one such case, they impressed a man, a common tradesman, who had a new wife and small baby. When the man was taken away, his wife had no way to make money, and took to begging in the streets. One day, with her baby near starvation, she stole a bun from a baker's cart to give to her child. The punishment for stealing ANYTHING at that time in England's glorious Georgian history was death. So the child went to a foster home, and the woman, who was only trying to keep her child alive, was hanged. True story, and not a rare event, either. So when America set up her own system of jurisprudence, they started thinking about "punishment that fit the crime" -- or in the words of the Constitution "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" I don't believe that Software Piracy would cause a bench to look too carefully at mitigating circumstances, but whatever the case, unless they plea-bargained (also not too likely), any mitigation would take place in the sentencing phase, and is solely at the discretion of the judge. And THAT's why, boys and girls, Theft is Theft. Whether you steal a Tootsie-Roll Pop or a nuclear delivery system, it's all theft. There is no shading. Get it?

>And THAT's why, boys and girls, Theft is Theft. Whether you steal a >Tootsie-Roll Pop or a nuclear delivery system, it's all theft. There is >no shading. > >Get it? Nope, cause if I did, THAT would be stealing! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Gristina [email hidden] "I am tougher than a $2 steak" - Norman Smiley

-<+>-Once again, it seems that you ARE convinced on the issue. If you want the -<+>-program, you'll download it. I would be willing to bet that a person who downloads warez buys a hell of a lot more than the person who does not download warez. Thanks, Mike Alexander ([email hidden]) Torch Red 1986 C4 "ITIS4FN" Pictures available at http://alexander.dyndns.org My 2nd Baby!!! (Note:remove the no_tickets. to send email)

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:15:34 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: >Jo, I don't know what planet you currently reside on, but there is no >"warez user type 3". There is a Warez user, period. You have a serious problem. Ever heard of the colour "grey"? (ok, so maybe it isn't a colour at all :-) ) I'll try to explain... Do you have an analogue steering wheel? Well, maybe you noticed that this enabled you to steer _a little_ to the left or _a little_ to the right. Or a little more than a little to the right or a little to the left. If you would always use a keyboard, it would only enable you to steer to the _extreme_ right or to the _extreme_ left. So: in the real (analogue) world, we have different shades of grey between total black and total white. In (your) digital world, we only have total black and total white. Maybe you use a keyboard after all.... >The law is a two-part process: prosecution, and -- in the event of >conviction -- sentencing. The law in this case is crystal clear: >software piracy constitutes intellectual property theft, and is illegal. >Period. No shadings, no "warez user type 3" -- it's just plain illegal. Wait a minute. I'm starting to understand... You're from the US!! Yep. Even if you are retarded, you get executed in the US. Forgot that for a second... The Law is The Law. Dura lex, sed lex. Let's not make things complicated, because that's waaaaay over our heads. And just look how SAFE a country the US is since they started with those practices. Sjeezz... if they wouldn't torture warez users and people with a nuanced point of view about it, I would almost think about migrating! >Now, if you and your pals are snagged pirating one copy of Spirit of >Speed 1937, and you're convicted of it, sentence -- punishment -- will >be imposed. In the case of "Spirit of Speed 1937," the sentence would >probably be to make you play it for 48 hours straight. Funny. And unrealistic: who's going to pirate SoS1937??? >If Bozo, Jr. is caught pirating a single copy of MS BackOffice and is >convicted, he will be sentenced differently, as the dollar value is >considerably higher and Microsoft has better lawyers than the SOS folks. How nice. The better the lawyers, the bigger the crime. What a GREAT system of jurisdiction we have here! Just keep defending it, Barton! >If a big corporate office gets convicted of pirating 100 copies of >Photoshop, their sentence is likely to be larger still -- except their >lawyers will mitigate the whole thing and pass on the legal fees to the >consumer -- you and me. Now I see... Apparently it's just your purse that worries you. Nothing to do with morals or ethics.

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Let me tell you a little story: in the late 18th century, the British >Navy, depleted of manpower by disease, shipwreck and a number of other >factors, simply couldn't get enough men to man their ships. So they >press-ganged them -- they'd get some guy drunk, or just break into his >home, and haul him off to what was usually a very short and bitter life >at sea. Oh, and for no pay whatsoever. > >In one such case, they impressed a man, a common tradesman, who had a >new wife and small baby. When the man was taken away, his wife had no >way to make money, and took to begging in the streets. One day, with her >baby near starvation, she stole a bun from a baker's cart to give to her >child. The punishment for stealing ANYTHING at that time in England's >glorious Georgian history was death. So the child went to a foster home, >and the woman, who was only trying to keep her child alive, was hanged. > >True story, and not a rare event, either.

Interesting entertaining story. Holywood surely has turned this one into a movie. But, what's your point? Do you agree or disagree? Do you want back to the "good old times", when the world wasn't so f*cking complex?

Quoted text (14 lines)

>So when America set up her own system of jurisprudence, they started >thinking about "punishment that fit the crime" -- or in the words of the >Constitution "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" > >I don't believe that Software Piracy would cause a bench to look too >carefully at mitigating circumstances, but whatever the case, unless >they plea-bargained (also not too likely), any mitigation would take >place in the sentencing phase, and is solely at the discretion of the judge. > >And THAT's why, boys and girls, Theft is Theft. Whether you steal a >Tootsie-Roll Pop or a nuclear delivery system, it's all theft. There is >no shading. > >Get it?

I think I need a better explanation, since I still don't have the feeling that I "get it". Define "no shading", for example. Does that mean that every act of stealing is punished identically? Apparently not, so it must mean something different. I'm waiting for the explanation. I'm also still waiting for a well thought-out explanation why the "warez-user type 3" is such an immoral criminal who damages the software industry. Simply stating that he doesn't exist is a little too easy to get away with. Let's just *pretend* that he exists then. For the sake of the discussion. After all, he's the only one that I am trying to keep out of jail (or who's hand I'm trying to save from amputation. We're talking about the US here :-) ) JoH

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>I think that most of us realize that it goes on. We also know that even >though >>we're against it(because it IS stealing, no matter what ANYONE says) > >THAT is debatable, i.e. not as obvious as you make it sound. What >makes it a bit special is that you are not "taking the software away". >You make a copy. So this *isolated* fact on itself does NOT hurt the >person who you are copying it from. That's why so many people, who >wouldn't even *consider* "stealing classic style", have no ethical >problems with using warez.

I understand that there are gray areas in enforcement, interpretation, morals, etc. I even alluded to it in my post. But technically, it's stealing, whether you or I like it or not. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 06 Sep 2000 10:39:28 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >(Jo Helsen) writes: > >>>I think that most of us realize that it goes on. We also know that even >>though >>>we're against it(because it IS stealing, no matter what ANYONE says) >> >>THAT is debatable, i.e. not as obvious as you make it sound. What >>makes it a bit special is that you are not "taking the software away". >>You make a copy. So this *isolated* fact on itself does NOT hurt the >>person who you are copying it from. That's why so many people, who >>wouldn't even *consider* "stealing classic style", have no ethical >>problems with using warez. > >I understand that there are gray areas in enforcement, interpretation, morals, >etc. I even alluded to it in my post. But technically, it's stealing, whether >you or I like it or not.

Depends on your definition of "stealing". So what is your definition of "stealing"? JoH

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear there. What I meant was I defend the rights of someone not to get flamed for expressing an opinion about warez that doesn't match up to someone elses. I don't defend anyone who actually does download stuff - they are on there own if they want to do that.

>"Red 86 Vet" <[email hidden]> wrote > I would be willing to bet that a person who downloads warez buys a hell ofa lot more than the > person who does not download warez. Reminds me of the whole MP3 problem, where the music industry has found out that a good portion of people who are really into MP3 actually buy more CD's than ever before. There is always the extremes, but the normal majority is like that. I know that I buy at least 200$ more in CD's per year than I have ever did, all because of MP3's. If I really need it, I will buy it. All this can apply to games. People have done illegal things since the age of dawn. I remember those 76-games-in-1 NES cartridge who were created from Famicom Japanese games. Every little kid in my block had one, but we were also the people buying and locating tons of stuff and gave millions to Nintendo. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>I understand that there are gray areas in enforcement, interpretation, >morals, >>etc. I even alluded to it in my post. But technically, it's stealing, >whether >>you or I like it or not. > >Depends on your definition of "stealing". So what is your definition >of "stealing"? >

Taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. I thought it was a normal definition... What's *your* definition? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Red 86 Vet <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>-<+>-Once again, it seems that you ARE convinced on the issue. If you want >the >-<+>-program, you'll download it. > >I would be willing to bet that a person who downloads warez buys a hell of a >lot more than the >person who does not download warez. >Thanks,

I don't understand this. Why would they? If they're going to buy the product, why download the warez? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Face it, the fact is demo software provided from companies is typically junk, and in a very small manner may model the final release of a program. If a person dl's the demo it will probably turn them off of the product, at least in my experiences since computer came out many moons ago. People may think that warez is a bad thing (maybe because they don't know how or where to get em? <toungue in cheek>) but I see a different side of this arguement. I am in no way saying warez is not illegal, nor do I support this activity, but I can tell you one thing, the majority of the people who are downloading this stuff would not be buying it anyway. So where is the REAL harm? I see only positives on the warez issue, a person uses the warez version, likes what it could potentially offer, then buys the real McCoy. It is simple progression. Just an observation.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>I would be willing to bet that a person who downloads warez buys a hell of a >>lot more than the >>person who does not download warez. >>Thanks, > >I don't understand this. Why would they? If they're going to buy the product, >why download the warez? > >Eldred

On 07 Sep 2000 14:24:06 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >(Jo Helsen) writes: > >>>I understand that there are gray areas in enforcement, interpretation, >>morals, >>>etc. I even alluded to it in my post. But technically, it's stealing, >>whether >>>you or I like it or not. >> >>Depends on your definition of "stealing". So what is your definition >>of "stealing"? >> > >Taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. I thought >it was a normal definition... What's *your* definition?

Ok. So what is your definition of "taking", then? It used to be "relocating" (i.e.: it is no longer where it WAS), and that's what "stealing" is based on. But in this case, "taking" means "duplicating" (i.e. it still is where it WAS, but now we also have an additional copy) That DOES make a difference. JoH

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:21:06 GMT, Red 86 Vet <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>Face it, the fact is demo software provided from companies is >typically junk, and in a very small manner may model the final release >of a program. If a person dl's the demo it will probably turn them >off of the product, at least in my experiences since computer came out >many moons ago. > >People may think that warez is a bad thing (maybe because they don't >know how or where to get em? <toungue in cheek>) but I see a different >side of this arguement. I am in no way saying warez is not illegal, >nor do I support this activity, but I can tell you one thing, the >majority of the people who are downloading this stuff would not be >buying it anyway. So where is the REAL harm? I see only positives on >the warez issue, a person uses the warez version, likes what it could >potentially offer, then buys the real McCoy. It is simple >progression. Just an observation.

You better prepare to hide from Barton ;-) JoH

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Jo Helsen) writes:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>>>Depends on your definition of "stealing". So what is your definition >>>of "stealing"? >>> >> >>Taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. I >thought >>it was a normal definition... What's *your* definition? > >Ok. > >So what is your definition of "taking", then? It used to be >"relocating" (i.e.: it is no longer where it WAS), and that's what >"stealing" is based on. > >But in this case, "taking" means "duplicating" (i.e. it still is where >it WAS, but now we also have an additional copy) > >That DOES make a difference. > >JoH

Taking - meaning you didn't have it before, but now you do. That definition covers relocating and/or duplicating... :) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Jo Helsen wrote: > > On 07 Sep 2000 14:24:06 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:snip

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >Taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. I thought > >it was a normal definition... What's *your* definition? > > Ok. > > So what is your definition of "taking", then? It used to be > "relocating" (i.e.: it is no longer where it WAS), and that's what > "stealing" is based on. > > But in this case, "taking" means "duplicating" (i.e. it still is where > it WAS, but now we also have an additional copy) > > That DOES make a difference.

No, it doesn't. You don't have to take away an object to be stealing. Get into a movie theatre without paying -> stealing, ride on a train or bus without paying -> stealing, copy a video from a friends original -> stealing, copy a game... got it? Hey, gimme your credit card number, I'll only use it for long distance calls to the US. I won't be removing any physical object from your house, so I will not be stealing anything, ey? -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

In article <[email hidden]>, Red 86 Vet <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (27 lines)

>Face it, the fact is demo software provided from companies is >typically junk, and in a very small manner may model the final release >of a program. If a person dl's the demo it will probably turn them >off of the product, at least in my experiences since computer came out >many moons ago. > >People may think that warez is a bad thing (maybe because they don't >know how or where to get em? <toungue in cheek>) but I see a different >side of this arguement. I am in no way saying warez is not illegal, >nor do I support this activity, but I can tell you one thing, the >majority of the people who are downloading this stuff would not be >buying it anyway. So where is the REAL harm? I see only positives on >the warez issue, a person uses the warez version, likes what it could >potentially offer, then buys the real McCoy. It is simple >progression. Just an observation. > >>>I would be willing to bet that a person who downloads warez buys a hell of >a >>>lot more than the >>>person who does not download warez. >>>Thanks, >> >>I don't understand this. Why would they? If they're going to buy the >product, >>why download the warez? >> >>Eldred

I know - I've seen some bad demos also. Toca2 for example. The demo was to me, bad enough to keep me from buying the retail version for a long time. I heard from people here that the retail was actually pretty good, so next time I saw it at t good price, I bought it. If I really thought that people were downloading warez for 'demo' purposes, then I might not be nearly as much against it. I have my doubts. I think that most people who do it really have no intention of buying the game anyway. They're just doing it to get something for free. These are the people who say "They don't deserve my money" while happily playing their warez copy... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] >(Jo Helsen) writes: > >>>>Depends on your definition of "stealing". So what is your definition >>>>of "stealing"? >>>> >>> >>>Taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. I >>thought >>>it was a normal definition... What's *your* definition? >> >>Ok. >> >>So what is your definition of "taking", then? It used to be >>"relocating" (i.e.: it is no longer where it WAS), and that's what >>"stealing" is based on. >> >>But in this case, "taking" means "duplicating" (i.e. it still is where >>it WAS, but now we also have an additional copy) >> >>That DOES make a difference. >> >>JoH > >Taking - meaning you didn't have it before, but now you do. That definition >covers relocating and/or duplicating... :)

Ok :-) And now the next step: what's wrong with that kind of "taking"? JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

In article <[email hidden]>, Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> writes: >>Taking - meaning you didn't have it before, but now you do. That definition >>covers relocating and/or duplicating... :) > >Ok :-) > >And now the next step: what's wrong with that kind of "taking"? If it's something being given away - nothing. If it includes something that the owner/seller expects to be paid for as a condition of your taking, then it's wrong. Granted, I wouldn't expect somone to be thrown in jail for copying ONE game, but the crime is still there. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Granted, I wouldn't expect somone to be thrown in jail for copying > ONE game, but the crime is still there. > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +50.77

Have you ever been to Texas?

In article <52Ru5.152$[email hidden]>, "spam sucks" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> Granted, I wouldn't expect somone to be thrown in jail for copying >> ONE game, but the crime is still there. >> >> Eldred >> -- >> Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 >> Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett >> GPL hcp. +50.77 > >Have you ever been to Texas?

No. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.